Enter the Dragon: AMD AM3 6-core desktop arriving in 2010

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...Processor.html

Advanced Micro Devices is preparing a desktop processor with six processing engines, sources familiar with the company’s plans revealed. The new central processing units (CPUs) will not be available this year, but are likely to boost performance of AMD’s desktop platforms sometime in 2010.

AMD’s processor code-named Thuban is the company’s first desktop processor with six processing engines. The microprocessors will be compatible with socket AM3 infrastructure and will have integrated dual-channel PC3-10600 (DDR3 1333MHz) memory controller. It is very likely that Thuban processors will retain AMD Phenom II brand name as well as design of the code-named Istanbul chips for servers, thus, will feature 3MB L2 cache (512KB per core) and 6MB of L3 cache. The chips will be made using 45nm SOI fabrication process.

But will it get 7.9 in Windows 7 performance index?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by initialised

But will it get 7.9 in Windows 7 performance index?

---

No :rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by initialised

But will it get 7.9 in Windows 7 performance index?

---

Only when Overclocked. The Q3 release time frame seems to be a conservative estimate or this news is just a half baked rumor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ubuntu83

Only when Overclocked. The Q3 release time frame seems to be a conservative estimate or this news is just a half baked rumor.

---

Well, it is Xbit afterall.

Great newz !!!

It's a little bit late (if Q3 2010 is right) but it's really good for all of us. :)

Good incentive to buy a AM3 build over the LGA775 at least.

chips must have turned out better then expected for that to happen.
it is nice to see Phenom II won't just have all out clock speeds now.

6-core on desktop.
Pointless.
:shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by largon

6-core on desktop.
Pointless.
:shrug:

---

So was 4 cores not all that long ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G0ldBr1ck

So was 4 cores not all that long ago.

---

+1

AMD and especially Intel are working with a lot of software devs to get multi-threaded code out in the wild. I predict 2010 will be the year of pervasive multi-threading.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mechromancer

+1

AMD and especially Intel are working with a lot of software devs to get multi-threaded code out in the wild. I predict 2010 will be the year of pervasive multi-threading.

---

Or improved compartmentalization... :rofl:

"No single program will lag your computer." :yepp::up::rofl::shakes::down:

wtf 6 cores and 9MB of cache? gonna cost a fortune to make it, i would rather see 8 cores and 4MB cache

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manicdan

wtf 6 cores and 9MB of cache? gonna cost a fortune to make it, i would rather see 8 cores and 4MB cache

---

MCM FTW.

AM3 socket? AM2+ compatible like current AM3 quad and tri?

Sounds like great news...if it's true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manicdan

wtf 6 cores and 9MB of cache? gonna cost a fortune to make it, i would rather see 8 cores and 4MB cache

---

8 CORE'S 12MB CACHE:shocked:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manicdan

wtf 6 cores and 9MB of cache? gonna cost a fortune to make it, i would rather see 8 cores and 4MB cache

---

512kbs per core + 6mbs of L3 cache = 9mbs

i know how to read, im thinking they are spending way to much of the chips space on cache, its nice and all, but more cores will give a much larger benefit in some things than an extra few MB of cache.

i wonder what the difference would be in chip size and performance with 256k L2 for 8 cores, and 2-3MB of L3 vs this with 9MB total and 6 cores

this really sounds like it was built for 32nm, and i hope they can shrink it down quick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by initialised

But will it get 7.9 in Windows 7 performance index?

---

legit or after I apply the 10-20 patch?
[Allowing me to manually set the score to what ever I want :p: ]

Everyone is talking about these like they are some new chip or should be redesigned cause the specs are "dumb". I think AMD knows more than you do about processor design, and these chips have been out for a little while already on the S1207 platform. These will be the same CPUs but on a different package. And no they aren't incredibly expensive to make, as you can see from current pricing.

six cores in an am3, yum yum!

This is Lisbon-a server C32 part- for desktop :). Should be interesting to see what clocks AMD manages to get from these parts.If these are slated for Q2 or Q3 next year,I think north of 3Ghz within present TDP brackets shouldn't be a stretch :).

*hidden ACC feature* enabling ACC and turning the HTT to 250Mhz will unlock 2 more cores and AMD's version of Hyper threading.

I know just kidding.

If true, then Bulldozer in late 2010/early 2011 looks even less plausible.

Quote:

---

AMD plans to transit from the current Dragon AM3 platform to Leo platform in April 2010. The new platform is made up of a slew of faster 45nm multi-core AM3 CPUs to be released next year coupled with the new AMD 890FX/GX + SB850 chipsets as well as the DX11 graphics cards;

---

source

i wonder if these are the "faster" cpu's they are talking about, i would be quite happy if we didn't have to wait until q3 for this. it would also be nice to see a few enthusiast class duel-socket mobos for this platform. asus? you listening?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kl0012

If true, then Bulldozer in late 2010/early 2011 looks even less plausible.

---

why? :confused:

GREAT, GREAT AMD !!!:up::up::clap:

Think, this will with only DDR3 ram controller (all new Leo CPUs)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kl0012

If true, then Bulldozer in late 2010/early 2011 looks even less plausible.

---

Bulldozer is a 2011 product and has been for a while.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by surfinhicdude

Well, it is Xbit afterall.

---

true... true...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 570091D

why? :confused:

---

Buldozer is aimed at high-performance segment, as well as "Thuban". Supposedly Bulldozer will be faster then Thuban, so what is the sense to release Thuban at the same time frame? Again Istanbul is barely competitive against Nehalem and supposedly will be just crashed by Sandy Bridge in Q4 2010. This movie seems to me like an act of desperation (considering there was no plans for Istanbul in the desktop segment in AMD's official roadmaps).

Istanbul vs. Nehalem:
http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/17005

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G0ldBr1ck

So was 4 cores not all that long ago.

---

isnt it still today? :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kl0012

Buldozer is aimed at high-performance segment, as well as "Thuban". Supposedly Bulldozer will be faster then Thuban, so what is the sense to release Thuban at the same time frame? Again Istanbul is barely competitive against Nehalem and supposedly will be just crashed by Sandy Bridge in Q4 2010. This movie seems to me like an act of desperation (considering there was no plans for Istanbul in the desktop segment in AMD's official roadmaps).

Istanbul vs. Nehalem:
http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/17005

---

I think the 6 core will get replaced by a Bulldozer 6 core later on. Till then quad cores maybe based on Bulldozer. Its similar way to how Intel has used Nehalem and its shrink together in its product tree. Intel will eventually replace the quad nahelem with a shrunk. In a similar way AMD may have 6 core Thuban and 4 core Bulldozer running together and eventually replace the 6 core Thuban with a 6 core Bulldozer. Also the AMD part is 2.6Ghz while the x5550 is 2.66Ghz & with turbo its 3.06Ghz, so its quite nice to see how the 2435 vs x5550 battle is so close. If AMD does release a 2.8-3.0 Ghz hexa core processor with a TDP of around 140w it would be a instant hit.

Now for the people who say AMD cant make profit on the hexa core because it too dam huge at 346 mm2 as compared to 265 mm2 for the nehalem, well the die size is not the whole thing of the equation. There are numerous other things that determine how expensive the processor will be to make like the cache, IO system, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

isnt it still today? :shrug:

---

But Intel and AMD has given up the speed race what else can they do but make the cpu's more efficient and parallel in nature with addition of cores.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mechromancer

+1

AMD and especially Intel are working with a lot of software devs to get multi-threaded code out in the wild. I predict 2010 will be the year of pervasive multi-threading.

---

Are you trying to rival Shintai for being referenced in people's sigs?

2010 will demonstrate what a rut CPU design is in for desktop users as 6 core CPU's prove to be near useless over their faster running Quad brothers in the same power envelope.

If AMD release a 6 core CPU without a turbo boost function in 2010 against a 6 core Westmere, they are going to lose embarrassingly in benchmarks and workloads.

570091D: -Thuban is Phenom K10/K10.5 architecture
-Bulldozer is totale new architecture, maybe killer architecture :) (here is thread about it)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaidev

I think the 6 core will get replaced by a Bulldozer 6 core later on. Till then quad cores maybe based on Bulldozer. Its similar way to how Intel has used Nehalem and its shrink together in its product tree. Intel will eventually replace the quad nahelem with a shrunk. In a similar way AMD may have 6 core Thuban and 4 core Bulldozer running together and eventually replace the 6 core Thuban with a 6 core Bulldozer. Also the AMD part is 2.6Ghz while the x5550 is 2.66Ghz & with turbo its 3.06Ghz, so its quite nice to see how the 2435 vs x5550 battle is so close. If AMD does release a 2.8-3.0 Ghz hexa core processor with a TDP of around 140w it would be a instant hit.

Now for the people who say AMD cant make profit on the hexa core because it too dam huge at 346 mm2 as compared to 265 mm2 for the nehalem, well the die size is not the whole thing of the equation. There are numerous other things that determine how expensive the processor will be to make like the cache, IO system, etc.



But Intel and AMD has given up the speed race what else can they do but make the cpu's more efficient and parallel in nature with addition of cores.

---

The question is not whether or not it will be replaced by Bulldozer. The question is "when?" I was sceptical about Bulldozer in Q4 2010/Q1 2011. Now I'm sceptical even more. I dont believe that AMD plans to release a year from now so questionable processor (from performance and cost points) that would be changed to something else within next 6 months.

Sounds nice, though its a bit disappointing that its still based on 45nm while Intel's Core i9 is going to be on a 32nm. But I'm happy with 9MB of cache altogether, though 12MB would sound better.

I wonder how this will compete against Intel, I just want this to be competitive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlanK3r

570091D: -Thuban is Phenom K10/K10.5 architecture
-Bulldozer is totale new architecture, maybe killer architecture :) (here is thread about it)

---

i understand this, and i've been reading dresdenboy's thread and blog. thuban is istanbul adapted for a different socket/platform. what i'm saying is: i wonder if the "faster processors" mentioned in the article are in fact thuban based. i can only hope so, because waiting until q3 to compete with nehelam will be disastrous for amd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chrono Detector

Sounds nice, though its a bit disappointing that its still based on 45nm while Intel's Core i9 is going to be on a 32nm. But I'm happy with 9MB of cache altogether, though 12MB would sound better.

I wonder how this will compete against Intel, I just want this to be competitive.

---

unless they're using 1MB L2 cache per core and sticking with 6MB L3 it wouldn't make any difference.

AMD showed that with K10.5 once the L3 increased to over 6MB there was little difference in performance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 570091D

i understand this, and i've been reading dresdenboy's thread and blog. thuban is istanbul adapted for a different socket/platform. what i'm saying is: i wonder if the "faster processors" mentioned in the article are in fact thuban based. i can only hope so, because waiting until q3 to compete with nehelam will be disastrous for amd.

---

wouldnt be surprised to see them add in a couple little tweaks etc..

Good news (at least for me..since i have desided AM3 over 775 )... i hope that AMD will not let go AM3 sooner than 2 years..

Maybe a test chip @45nm with some Bulldozer functions onboard?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ubuntu83

Maybe a test chip @45nm with some Bulldozer functions onboard?

---

it's should a 4 core bulldozer first on 32nm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ubuntu83

Maybe a test chip @45nm with some Bulldozer functions onboard?

---

I don't think so, probably an Istambul core desktop (less HT links) variation.

I'm curious where do you see usage of more than four cores in your daily usage?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nedjo

I'm curious where do you see usage of more than four cores in your daily usage?

---

same place where you see 2gbs needed for video memory. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nedjo

I'm curious where do you see usage of more than four cores in your daily usage?

---

Are you suggesting that there wont be a X6 desktop cpu from AMD anytime soon.

Holding back on X4 945/955/965 and gettin a X2 550BE as an interim CPU is finally paying off..... :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ubuntu83

Are you suggesting that there wont be a X6 desktop cpu from AMD anytime soon.

---

I'm not suggesting anything, just asking 'cos I fail to see the point of the desktop CPU beyond four cores... since I accept possibility of being short sighted I'm asking you guys where do you see Hexa-Core desktop usage?

Actually only thing that can see benefits of ever more CPU cores is in Pro rendering and animation software... but those people who're seriously in that business usually go for Dual, or even quad-Socket rendering rigs.

Only thing that's left as a demanding task for average Joe is video transcoding for YouTube or iPod-like usage, and thanks to the power of GPUs many-core CPUs are pointless...

When it comes to gaming even the best threaded 3D engines are struggling to fully utility quad-Core CPUs... maybe that'll change with DX11... maybe!

IMHO that additional silicon for two more cores would be better used with GPU "co-processor" ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chumbucket843

MCM FTW.

---

I don't think this chip is a MCM. This is a native 6 core design

I'm dying here for the new 800 series chipset boards. I know these Istanbuls will clock higher than they have so far. The only limit I've had, even on default vCore, is the motherboard's HT clock generation.

I hope they release it sooner.

An overclocked Phenom II X6 will match overclocked i7s in folding applications at a lower system cost.

Perkam

i do think its too soon for more cores, i think 5ghz duel cores will out perform 3ghz quads in 90% of the average users applications. by the time most programs work with quad cores, most people will have quads, and XS users will have 12 cores. (but there will be a few things that were built right and we will love them for it, and its because of those few companies who strive to get the best out of every cpu, that we have a reason to be happy for these awesome new chips)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nedjo

I'm curious where do you see usage of more than four cores in your daily usage?

---

Benchmarks :cool: Except for that umh... nowhere at all except folding :rofl: :ROTF:

More than four cores? It's kind of nice to have an x264 encode going in the background that doesn't impact my performance while I'm playing Supreme Commander. That's about 8 cores maxed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaidev

But Intel and AMD has given up the speed race what else can they do but make the cpu's more efficient and parallel in nature with addition of cores.

---

if you cant make the cores clock higher then make them do more work per clock... just copy pasting the same core over and over for years and praying that some apps will hopefully make use of it one day is ridiculous...

for servers that strategy actually works well, thats why they continue, both intel and amd... but they must realize that they cant dump all those mega core chips on the desktop, we will have 8core 16 thread and 12 core cpus in the server market soon... it will probably be a decade until this amount of cores makes sense in a desktop system... so whats their strategy? in the server segment they double up cores every now and then, and desktop? 4 cores... 4 cores... 4 cores... 4 cores... all we get is slightly improved ipc, slightly higher clocks, slighty lower tdp and slightly lower prices maybe... if they dont come up with a better strategy the desktop segment will stagnate for quite a while...

This reminds me of apples stock and earnings expectations.

AMD is being heavily pessimistic and loose with their expected launch so they can say "Hey look at us, we are beating our deadlines!"

I dont mind for 6 cores.. there are a lot of video, 3d guys :) (of course apps arent optimized but likely will be those ones first of all apps in future)

AMD Phenom II X6 with six cores and processing threads will have to compete with Intel Gulftown i7 which should have six cores at 12 processing threads...Is AMD going to release their own type of SMT?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chad Boga

Are you trying to rival Shintai for being referenced in people's sigs?

2010 will demonstrate what a rut CPU design is in for desktop users as 6 core CPU's prove to be near useless over their faster running Quad brothers in the same power envelope.

If AMD release a 6 core CPU without a turbo boost function in 2010 against a 6 core Westmere, they are going to lose embarrassingly in benchmarks and workloads.

---

Chad maybe you are unaware but amd already has a "turbo" feature. Its called fusion. Looks like they are overhauling it to work inside of AOD now a smart choice as who want multiple programs open.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monkeywoman

AMD Phenom II X6 with six cores and processing threads will have to compete with Intel Gulftown i7 which should have six cores at 12 processing threads...Is AMD going to release their own type of SMT?

---

It will be used in Bulldozer apparently.
And yeah, Gulftown should be out before AMD 6-core chip, so competing will be oh so tough... Hoping for a nice price though! :yepp:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monkeywoman

AMD Phenom II X6 with six cores and processing threads will have to compete with Intel Gulftown i7 which should have six cores at 12 processing threads...Is AMD going to release their own type of SMT?

---

Yeah, it's called CMT.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

if you cant make the cores clock higher then make them do more work per clock... just copy pasting the same core over and over for years and praying that some apps will hopefully make use of it one day is ridiculous...

---

There's a limit to that too...
First with SSE, and now AVX. Needless to say, not everything can vectorize.

Same idea at the instruction level. It's kinda hard to make an instruction take less than 1 cycle. Yes you can do multiple instructions at once, but again, that's parallelism and not every application allows for that.

Lost planet uses 7 cores ,and I'm guessing lost planet 2 will use the same.Some games do benefit from more cores.http://www.gamespot.com/features/6185511/index.html:up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chew*

Chad maybe you are unaware but amd already has a "turbo" feature. Its called fusion. Looks like they are overhauling it to work inside of AOD now a smart choice as who want multiple programs open.

---

I thought fusion is a software solution?

Its not really somthing like turbo, where the cpu on its own decides when and how much it "overclocks".
Also fusion is tide to the os, if your on any other os then windows -> no go, intels turbo is os independent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

I thought fusion is a software solution?

Its not really somthing like turbo, where the cpu on its own decides when and how much it "overclocks".
Also fusion is tide to the os, if your on any other os then windows -> no go, intels turbo is os independent.

---

Since windows is a dominant OS today on DT I see no problem with fusion and support for it.Those who want linux can always OC through bios and use CnQ2 with the OCing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chew*

Chad maybe you are unaware but amd already has a "turbo" feature. Its called fusion. Looks like they are overhauling it to work inside of AOD now a smart choice as who want multiple programs open.

---

Which won't help AMD in respect of the 90% + of computer users who don't overclock and won't be a factor in reviews done by the most popular sites.

The way fusoin works is when enabled it kills useless services and bumps cpu clocks depending on what setting you choose.

I see no reason why OEM purchasers can't use it. I see no reason why reviewers don't use it. If they use intels turbo function for reviews then they should use amd's variant as well.

It intention is to give a perormance boost for even the most inexperienced users. Thus its reason for not boosting clocks when in advanced mode.

There implementation may not be the greatest however......it is a viable option with everything set to auto as an average joe would be and C and Q engaged I don't see how turbo is much diff from somone using fusion........cpu downclocks core/volts at idle, pulled out of idle state cpu runs at XXXX speed higher than stock.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chew*

The way fusoin works is when enabled it kills useless services and bumps cpu clocks depending on what setting you choose.

I see no reason why OEM purchasers can't use it. I see no reason why reviewers don't use it. If they use intels turbo function for reviews then they should use amd's variant as well.

---

If OEM's and reviewers aren't using fusion now, what makes you think they will for Hex-core?

You are grasping at straws. :shakes:

I thought Fusion was Bulldozer + GPU on the same silicon ...
I missed something :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chew*

The way fusoin works is when enabled it kills useless services and bumps cpu clocks depending on what setting you choose.

I see no reason why OEM purchasers can't use it. I see no reason why reviewers don't use it. If they use intels turbo function for reviews then they should use amd's variant as well.

---

There is a huge difference in implementations.

The SW Fusion, fixes itself to a profile, it does not detect load or capability (thermally), and cannot adjust to the conditions. Furthermore, it is not implemented in hardware, and it pushes the CPU outside of specs, hence, voids warranty. This is precisely why OEM's will not use it, and I would challenge you to install it on a OEM system that would need warranty work related to the CPU and see how fast the RMA is rejected. OEMs, not AMD, are liable for warranty work and charges, whether AMD will honor a warranty via an OEM for a processor run out of specifications is a big question mark (I suspect they would, simply to ensure good working relations), nonetheless, the OEM still incurs a cost associated with the repair regardless.

Intel's turbo implementation allows clocking within the thermal specifications, does not void warranty, is an architectural feature of the CPU, and is transparent to the OS, i.e. it does not require profiling or user intervention.

If you think reviewers should be allowed to install special software to inflate performance of the CPU in review that it otherwise is not designed to handle, then a similar software should be used on the other CPU -- i.e. EVGA's Eleet utility (very nice little ap actually).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chad Boga

If OEM's and reviewers aren't using fusion now, what makes you think they will for Hex-core?

You are grasping at straws. :shakes:

---

I don't grasp at straws just putting it out there that its a simple application.

Combined with C and Q I don't see how it doesn't detect load or capability....Perschoot is amd's thermal throttling......

You guys should really read the white papers and learn something rather than pretending to know something.

I would be curious to see how many OEM's are actually utilyzing intels turbo feature ;)

I've seen Dells that came with Hyper Threading disabled on their Pentium 4s, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if they disable turbo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thebluemeanie1

I've seen Dells that came with Hyper Threading disabled on their Pentium 4s, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if they disable turbo.

---

Are Dell disabling turbo on the i7's they sell today?

Let that be your guide.

I guess we are missing one important thing here! :)

While AMD is offering users a nice upgrade path: Athlon II X2 -> Phenom II X2 -> X3 -> X4 -> now X6 within the same socket, Intel is milking customers with overblown prices and 3 sockets?

I just hope that some reviewers will see the light and stop recommending overpriced solutions to "normal" users.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadov

I guess we are missing one important thing here! :)

While AMD is offering users a nice upgrade path: Athlon II X2 -> Phenom II X2 -> X3 -> X4 -> now X6 within the same socket, Intel is milking customers with overblown prices and 3 sockets?

I just hope that some reviewers will see the light and stop recommending overpriced solutions to "normal" users.

---

Since it is not clear yet if this thing supports DDR2 memory I don't understand what you are speaking about. What about AM2/AM2+ and DDR2 owners? Probably only owners of new AM3 boards will benefit from this cpu. It's like to say that 775 supports nice upgrade path - Celeron => Pentium => Core 2 Duo => Core 2 Quad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Olivon

I thought Fusion was Bulldozer + GPU on the same silicon ...
I missed something :shrug:

---

Here you go:
http://sites.amd.com/us/fusion/Pages/index.aspx
:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kl0012

Since it is not clear yet if this thing supports DDR2 memory I don't understand what you are speaking about. What about AM2/AM2+ and DDR2 owners? Probably only owners of new AM3 boards will benefit from this cpu. It's like to say that 775 supports nice upgrade path - Celeron => Pentium => Core 2 Duo => Core 2 Quad.

---

AM2+ mobo that have split power planes will support x6. Your lineup actually is what is better in AMD than Intel.

AMD goes x1>x2>x3>x4>x6 "Maybe even x5 who know" AM3/AM2 split power planes
Intel goes x1>x2>x4>Noting "LGA775"

AMD has more choice and as noted the Phenom II's perform very well. Most likely AMD will intro a new socket in 2011 with intro of bulldozer but most likely so will Intel with sandy bridge. So what about LGA775 well its dead. AM2+ with split power planes/AM3 gives you more future prospects.

Also AMD uses the same socket for the high end, low end and low end and intel uses three "1366,1156 and 775". Intel has no plans to intro six core mid end processors in 1156 so that means no future prospects except getting either a i9+1366 or waiting for sandy bridge. If this is based on Istanbul "which it most likely is" they can use DDR2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kl0012

Since it is not clear yet if this thing supports DDR2 memory I don't understand what you are speaking about. What about AM2/AM2+ and DDR2 owners? Probably only owners of new AM3 boards will benefit from this cpu. It's like to say that 775 supports nice upgrade path - Celeron => Pentium => Core 2 Duo => Core 2 Quad.

---

yes perhaps try that with all the available vrm support lists....
or did you also forget that you have both ddr2 and ddr3 775 boards... so are you comparing boards or cpu's and combining which on what????

on some am2 and all am2+ boards you can still use all ddr2 sempron/athlon/phenom versions + the ddr2/ddr3 combo's now and perhaps the 6 core.

if this 6 core is based on the current istanbul then it can also have the same dual mem controller just like current deneb offerings, there is no info that it would only be ddr3, stop speculations!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaidev

AM2+ mobo that have split power planes will support x6. Your lineup actually is what is better in AMD than Intel.

AMD goes x1>x2>x3>x4>x6 "Maybe even x5 who know" AM3/AM2 split power planes
Intel goes x1>x2>x4>Noting "LGA775"

---

No, my 775 lineup was actually sarcasm. I don't believe in backward compability. Neither for AMD, nor in Intel. Even in spite of the fact that my lucky P5B-E motherboard already saw 3 different CPUs. But thats always lottery and many S754 and AM2 owners can say you that. Except that it is worth to replace motherboards sometimes not just for CPUs, but for new features.

Quote:

---

AMD has more choice and as noted the Phenom II's perform very well. Most likely AMD will intro a new socket in 2011 with intro of bulldozer but most likely so will Intel with sandy bridge. So what about LGA775 well its dead. AM2+ with split power planes/AM3 gives you more future prospects.

Also AMD uses the same socket for the high end, low end and low end and intel uses three "1366,1156 and 775". Intel has no plans to intro six core mid end processors in 1156 so that means no future prospects except getting either a i9+1366 or waiting for sandy bridge. If this is based on Istanbul "which it most likely is" they can use DDR2

---

If we put aside all new features comming in the next months (such as SATA3and USB3) which can alone justify mboard replacement, I really don't see motivation to use 6-core with DDR2 which can turn into bottleneck for many cores CPUs. After all AMD CPUs has less advanced mem prefetch/disambiguous technologes then Intel's Core.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duploxxx

yes perhaps try that with all the available vrm support lists....
or did you also forget that you have both ddr2 and ddr3 775 boards... so are you comparing boards or cpu's and combining which on what????

on some am2 and all am2+ boards you can still use all ddr2 sempron/athlon/phenom versions + the ddr2/ddr3 combo's now and perhaps the 6 core.

if this 6 core is based on the current istanbul then it can also have the same dual mem controller just like current deneb offerings, there is no info that it would only be ddr3, stop speculations!

---

Sorry it is not me who started speculations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kl0012

I really don't see motivation to use 6-core with DDR2 which can turn into bottleneck for many cores CPUs. After all AMD CPUs has less advanced mem prefetch/disambiguous technologes then Intel's Core.

---

6 MB L3 cache does make i hard to see the difference between DDR2 and DDR3.

Applications that use much memory will probably get less performance with prefetch technology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kl0012

Since it is not clear yet if this thing supports DDR2 memory I don't understand what you are speaking about. What about

---

Indeed,Thuban core suposed to be a desktop variation of Lisbon (Opteron equivalent), so the IMC is exclusively DDR3, so no DDR2 support, and at the end, no socket AM2/AM2+ compatibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mk_dir

Indeed,Thuban core suposed to be a desktop variation of Lisbon (Opteron equivalent), so the IMC is exclusively DDR3, so no DDR2 support, and at the end, no socket AM2/AM2+ compatibility.

---

Give me a source to that.

For all we know it could support DDR2 and DDR3, or just DDR3 but there is no proof to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mk_dir

Indeed,Thuban core suposed to be a desktop variation of Lisbon (Opteron equivalent), so the IMC is exclusively DDR3, so no DDR2 support, and at the end, no socket AM2/AM2+ compatibility.

---

Interesting indeed, though:

Barcelona -> Phenom
Shanghai -> Phenom II
Istanbul -> Phenom II X6

Why should AMD take a different approach?

Well, just look at the Istambul specs, it uses an only DDR2 IMC, due to backward compatibility... AMD claims to have full DDR3 support for Opteron systems with his new platform (new C32/G34 sockets on 2010, the Fiorano chipsets SR5890 + SP5100 still on DDR2 memory) and Lisbon processor is the six-core update for this new platform.

Now we know Lisbon situation, we can read this:

Quote:

---

If Thuban exists, it could be a derivative of not Istanbul, but Lisbon, AMD's next-gen six-core offering.

---

Link.

So my conclusion is, Thuban's IMC -> DDR3.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mk_dir

Well, just look at the Istambul specs, it uses an only DDR2 IMC, due to backward compatibility... AMD claims to have full DDR3 support for Opteron systems with his new platform (new C32/G34 sockets, the Fiorano chipsets SR5890 + SP5100 still on DDR2 memory) and Lisbon processor is the six-core update for this new platform.

Now we know Lisbon situation, we can read this:

Link.

So my conclusion is, Thuban's IMC -> DDR3.

---

Fyi Istanbul is the same as Phenom II x4 920/940 in the IMC situation. DDR3 support is there, present on the die but it is disabled.

It will be the very same with Lisbon except Lisbon won't be able to fit into any socket with DDR2 so therefor it is DDR3 only. So DDR2 and support for current AM2+ 790FX motherboard is very likely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gosh

6 MB L3 cache does make i hard to see the difference between DDR2 and DDR3.

Applications that use much memory will probably get less performance with prefetch technology.

---

1 MB per core? It's not funy at all. After all you don't buy such cpu for single thread performance. If I remember it correctly, AMD estimation for specfp was 38% more performance for 50% more cores.
Also even bigger cache can't help to apps with streaming data. We can look at benchmarks from techreport:
http://www.techreport.com/r.x/phenom...965/x264-2.gif
100% perf diff going from Athlon II X2 250 to Phenom II 940
90% perf diff going from QX9770 to dual QX9775
41% perf diff going from Ph II x3 720 to Ph II x4 920... hmmm...
http://techreport.com/r.x/opteron-2435/x264-2.gif
38% perf diff going from Opteron 2384 (2.7) to 2435 (2.6) with 3% diff in freq.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kl0012

1 MB per core? It's not funy at all. After all you don't buy such cpu for single thread performance. If I remember it correctly, AMD estimation for specfp was 38% more performance for 50% more cores.
Also even bigger cache can't help to apps with streaming data. We can look at benchmarks from techreport:

---

Including pass 1 charts for a better picture?

http://www.techreport.com/r.x/phenom...965/x264-1.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadov

Including pass 1 charts for a better picture?

---

Pass 1 doesn't scales lineary with number of cores.
In fact worst scalability of pass 1 and possible bottleneck of DDR2 doesn't help to Istanbul:
http://www.techreport.com/r.x/opteron-2435/x264-1.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kl0012

1 MB per core? It's not funy at all. After all you don't buy such cpu for single thread performance. If I remember it correctly, AMD estimation for specfp was 38% more performance for 50% more cores.
Also even bigger cache can't help to apps with streaming data. We can look at benchmarks from techreport:
http://www.techreport.com/r.x/phenom...965/x264-2.gif
100% perf diff going from Athlon II X2 250 to Phenom II 940
90% perf diff going from QX9770 to dual QX9775
41% perf diff going from Ph II x3 720 to Ph II x4 920... hmmm...
http://techreport.com/r.x/opteron-2435/x264-2.gif
38% perf diff going from Opteron 2384 (2.7) to 2435 (2.6) with 3% diff in freq.

---

How can you compare 2435 to 2384 or x3 720 to a x4 920???

Oh and fyi the 12mb huge cache in a i9, well you do know that even SMT's eat cache so 12 threads means amm yes 1 mb per thread, now thats funny.

Forgot to add total cache the AMD hex core has is around 9 MB and total cache that a i9 has is around 13 MB, that is a 4 MB difference. Added to this how much 6 virtual threads also need cache.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaidev

How can you 2435 to 2384 or x3 720 to a x4 920???

---

And what is an actual difference? Only number of cores (and frequency in case of opterons)

Quote:

---

Oh and fyi the 12mb huge cache in a i9, well you do know that even SMT's eat cache so 12 threads means amm yes 1 mb per thread, now thats funny.

---

Let's not forget 3-channel DDR3, better prefetchers and memory disambiguation (which is missing in Phenom).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kl0012

1 MB per core? It's not funy at all. After all you don't buy such cpu for single thread performance. If I remember it correctly, AMD estimation for specfp was 38% more performance for 50% more cores.
Also even bigger cache can't help to apps with streaming data. We can look at benchmarks from techreport:

---

How is it compiled?
How does the code look like?

Reading one byte on each read compared to read 8 byte each read, and you will se huge differences. Align reads for cache lines (the size for each line) will improve speed.
Or why not SSE2 optimize it.

You just can't take one test and say "this is how fast it is". bad code isn't fast.

L3 cache is shared among cores.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaidev

Forgot to add total cache the AMD hex core has is around 9 MB and total cache that a i9 has is around 13 MB, that is a 4 MB difference. Added to this how much 6 virtual threads also need cache.

---

Cache on Intel is inclusive, data is mirrored among cache levels. That means no more cache then 12 MB.
AMD has exclusive cache, data isn't mirrored among cache levels. L1 + L2 + L3 = total cache size

AMD also has 48 way L3 cache versus i7 (i9) 16 way L3 cache. i7 evicts data soner because when memory is mapped agains cache each address on i7 have 16 different places to be stored at. On AMD it has 48

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smartidiot89

Fyi Istanbul is the same as Phenom II x4 920/940 in the IMC situation. DDR3 support is there, present on the die but it is disabled.

It will be the very same with Lisbon except Lisbon won't be able to fit into any socket with DDR2 so therefor it is DDR3 only. So DDR2 and support for current AM2+ 790FX motherboard is very likely.

---

Maybe you're right, but in this point we're talking about Lisbon, not Istanbul (BTW,are you sure this core's IMC has support for DDR3?, Istambul can't use DDR3 in any system, so it's useless).

If the new cores for C32/G34 use exclusively DDR3 memory, why you would need a dual IMC? in the same way as why you would need DDR3 on Istambul processsor... :shrug: Maybe dual IMC on the desktop variaton only? Sounds improbably for me

I will glad to see a dual IMC on Thuban, but, Lisbon -> DDR3 so...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gosh

How is it compiled?
How does the code look like?

---

Thet was an old AMD's diagram before Istanbul release.
There is something new now:
http://www.amd.com/PublishingImages/...JPEG/29490.jpg

Quote:

---

Reading one byte on each read compared to read 8 byte each read, and you will se huge differences. Align reads for cache lines (the size for each line) will improve speed.
Or why not SSE2 optimize it.

---

I did not argue about whose cache is better. 1 MB per core simple is too small considering bottleneked bandwidth and week prefetch mechnism. Funny but it was long-term claim that AMD doesn't need prefetchers and big caches because of the integrated mem controller. But even IMC can be bottlenek if its bandwidth is too small to feed all cores.

Quote:

---

L3 cache is shared among cores.

---

I know it. But, as I said, you don't buy such CPU for single threaded performance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kl0012

I did not argue about whose cache is better. 1 MB per core simple is too small considering bottleneked bandwidth and week prefetch mechnism.

---

Could you please explain how prefetch makes things faster on a CPU that has good bandwidth and low(er) latency running applications that use much memory?

Don't you think that polluting the cache and increase load between memory and cpu could make things worse?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mk_dir

Maybe you're right, but in this point we're talking about Lisbon, not Istanbul (BTW,are you sure this core's IMC has support for DDR3?, Istambul can't use DDR3 in any system, so it's useless).

If the new cores for C32/G34 use exclusively DDR3 memory, why you would need a dual IMC? in the same way as why you would need DDR3 on Istambul processsor... :shrug: Maybe dual IMC on the desktop variaton only? Sounds improbably for me

I will glad to see a dual IMC on Thuban, but, Lisbon -> DDR3 so...

---

100% Istanbul has DDR3 but it is disabled cause AMD didn't see a need to validate it since there are no DDR3 socket F platforms and never will be. My source for this is the serverguy John Freuhe

Lisbon is Istanbul with a few tweaks, I am pretty sure it will have DDR2 support disabled/not validated since there won't be C32/G34 platforms with DDR2 modules. I am very much confident that "Thuban" would have both DDR2 and DDR3 that is afterall AMDs big sellingpoint.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mk_dir

Maybe you're right, but in this point we're talking about Lisbon, not Istanbul (BTW,are you sure this core's IMC has support for DDR3?, Istambul can't use DDR3 in any system, so it's useless).

If the new cores for C32/G34 use exclusively DDR3 memory, why you would need a dual IMC? in the same way as why you would need DDR3 on Istambul processsor... :shrug: Maybe dual IMC on the desktop variaton only? Sounds improbably for me

I will glad to see a dual IMC on Thuban, but, Lisbon -> DDR3 so...

---

i am sure that Smartidiot is correct. I also did read that the DDR3 part is just disabled but is there, where as Lisbon does not have the part.

The desktop part is not suppose to come with C32 socket. The desktop new socket may come with Bulldozer but not a 6 core same arc. processor

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaidev

AM2+ mobo that have split power planes will support x6. Your lineup actually is what is better in AMD than Intel.

AMD goes x1>x2>x3>x4>x6 "Maybe even x5 who know" AM3/AM2 split power planes
Intel goes x1>x2>x4>Noting "LGA775"

AMD has more choice and as noted the Phenom II's perform very well. Most likely AMD will intro a new socket in 2011 with intro of bulldozer but most likely so will Intel with sandy bridge. So what about LGA775 well its dead. AM2+ with split power planes/AM3 gives you more future prospects.

Also AMD uses the same socket for the high end, low end and low end and intel uses three "1366,1156 and 775". Intel has no plans to intro six core mid end processors in 1156 so that means no future prospects except getting either a i9+1366 or waiting for sandy bridge. If this is based on Istanbul "which it most likely is" they can use DDR2

---

so this 6x cpu will still support ddr2? that would be pretty sweet... makes am2 look like not that bad of a platform after all... though its probably am2+ right?

the original am2 was such a joke... i wish they would have stayed on 939 and then moved to am3 with ddr2 and an included upgrade path to ddr3 already on the same socket in slumber...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gosh

Could you please explain how prefetch makes things faster on a CPU that has good bandwidth and low(er) latency running applications that use much memory?

---

Latencies of L1/L2/L3 always better then memory latency. Don't you prefer to find your data in cache instead of memory when you need it?

Quote:

---

Don't you think that polluting the cache and increase load between memory and cpu could make things worse?

---

Of cause prefetchers aren't helpfull for application with low mem locality (such as data bases) but from the begining I've spoke about streaming apps which requires high mem bandwidth (majority of such apps have high mem locality).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaidev

i am sure that Smartidiot is correct. I also did read that the DDR3 part is just disabled but is there, where as Lisbon does not have the part.

The desktop part is not suppose to come with C32 socket. The desktop new socket may come with Bulldozer but not a 6 core same arc. processor

---

You convinced me guys, so it's possible a dual IMC on Thuban, that's nice :up:

The socket question it's clear, this processor gonna use desktop socket AM3 (C32 only for single/dual processor server motherboards, G34 for multisocket server tier), the new desktop socket shouldn't come until Orichi, a Bulldozer's arch core.